Amarjet Kaur v. The Income Tax Officer & Anr

$~27 *IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI +W.P.(C) 1451/2020, CM APPL. 5022/2020 AMARJET KAUR ..... Petitioner Through:Ms. Suruchi Agarwal, Adv. alongwith Ms. Arpana Majumdar, Adv. versus THE INCOME TAX OFFICER & ANR. ..... RespondentsThrough:Mr.SunilAgarwal,Sr.Standingcounsel with Mr.Tushar Gupta andMr. Akash Pratap Singh, Advs. CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIPIN SANGHIHON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV NARULAO R D E R%07.02.2020 CM APPL. 5022/2020 (exemption) 1. Exemption allowed, subject to all just exceptions. 2. The application stands disposed of. W.P.(C) 1451/2020 & CM APPL. 5021/2020 (stay) 3. Issue notice. Learned counsel for the respondents accepts notice. 4. We have heard the learned counsel. 5. The order that we propose to be pass today, in our view, does not call fora reply. 6. The present case represents an exceptional situation which calls for anexceptional approach. The petitioner has assailed the assessment order dated 07.12.2019 passed by the Assessing Officer (AO), ward 68(1), New Delhi.The petitioner also assails demand notices dated 07.12.2019 and 20.01.2020passed the same AO. The petitioner also assails the order dated 30.01.2020,rejecting the stay of the demand and directing the petitioner to deposit 20%of entire demand drawn within 7 days. 7. The case of the petitioner is that she and her husband, Mr. Jagtar Singhhad made deposits with the Post Office. On the maturity of the said deposits,the amounts were transferred in their two bank accounts and were shown ascash entries, though, they were bank transfers. On the basis that the saidamounts have been received as cash, which were not explained by thepetitioner, the AO proceeded to make additions of Rs. 18,90,000/-. This wasdespite the fact that the petitioner had explained the position to the AO thatthe amounts had been received on the maturity of the deposits with the PostOffice under the Monthly Income Scheme (MIS). The petitioner has evenprocured a letter dated 18.12.2019 which was issued by the postaldepartment, which clearly states that the said deposits were internal transfersand not deposits made in cash. This communication was also marked to theIncome Tax Officer, Ward No. 68 (1), New Delhi. However, it appears thatthe AO had already passed the assessment order on 07.12.2019 i.e. beforethe receipt of communication dated 18.12.2019. 8. In these circumstances, we are unable to appreciate as to how, firstly, theAO could have rejected the stay application. 9. In our view, the petitioner should not be subjected to harassment forpursuing her appeal.We therefore, set aside the assessment order dated 07.12.2019 and remand the matter to the AO for passing fresh assessmentorder after considering the relevant documents including the communicationdated 18.12.2019 issued by the Office Of Sr. Superintendent of Post Offices,Delhi East Division, Delhi. 10. Consequently, the impugned demand notices are also set aside. Theappeal before the CIT (A) has also become infructuous in view of the abovecircumstances. 11. Copy of this order be given dasti under the signature of Court Master. VIPIN SANGHI, J FEBRUARY 07, 2020Pallavi SANJEEV NARULA, J